Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kitsune9" data-source="post: 6064006" data-attributes="member: 18507">My interest in D&amp;D Next has waned a bit (actually considerably), but this latest version perked me up. I'm really digging the flatter math. My only &quot;gripe&quot; (if I can call it that) is that I would like the attack bonuses to have a bit more disparity.For fighters, they should have the best to hit bonuses hands-down. Sub-fighter classes should just be a +1 difference lower. Monsters should have the same attack bonuses as either the fighter or the sub-class fighters to make them nasty.For clerics and rogues, I'm on the fence as to which class should be better at hitting stuff or just make them equal, but the difference between them and a fighter should be noticeable.For mages, I like it that they get squat for hitting stuff, but should be the best at hitting things with their spells when an attack roll is called for.Happy Gaming!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kitsune9, post: 6064006, member: 18507"] My interest in D&D Next has waned a bit (actually considerably), but this latest version perked me up. I'm really digging the flatter math. My only "gripe" (if I can call it that) is that I would like the attack bonuses to have a bit more disparity. For fighters, they should have the best to hit bonuses hands-down. Sub-fighter classes should just be a +1 difference lower. Monsters should have the same attack bonuses as either the fighter or the sub-class fighters to make them nasty. For clerics and rogues, I'm on the fence as to which class should be better at hitting stuff or just make them equal, but the difference between them and a fighter should be noticeable. For mages, I like it that they get squat for hitting stuff, but should be the best at hitting things with their spells when an attack roll is called for. Happy Gaming! [/QUOTE]

Verification